Thursday, December 7, 2017

Trump’s Quds move last nail in Zionism coffin: Commentator

US President Donald Trump has officially declared the disputed city of Jerusalem al-Quds as Israel's capital despite warnings from around the world that the move risks triggering a fresh wave of violence in the Middle East. He has also set in motion the relocation of the American embassy in Tel Aviv to the city, which has drawn condemnation from all corners of the world. Press TV has talked to Marwa Osman, political commentator, as well as Geoffrey Alderman, historian and political commentator, to share their opinions on the consequences of such a move.

Osman believes Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem al-Quds as Israel's capital is “the final nail in the coffin of Zionism in the Middle East,” adding that it would bring an end to the so-called peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

She went on to say that Trump has no idea about the consequences of his actions, asserting that he has no depth of understanding of either foreign or domestic policy.

“The man [Trump] has no idea what he has just done, he has no idea what kind of a shock wave will start from within al-Quds and outwards, towards the regional and Arab and eventually the Islamic world and also the free world which is against this declaration which is unjustified, it is illegal, it is illegitimate, it would never give any sort of legitimacy [to] the Zionist occupation,” she said.

The commentator also noted even the United States’ close allies -- such as the UK -- do not condone such a step.

She also highlighted the fact that the Israelis have been killing the Palestinians and taking their land for the past 70 years, emphasizing that the only way out of this situation is through resistance.

The commentator further suggested that people around the world should stand up to Trump’s decision, stressing that the issue of Jerusalem al-Quds is “a very emotional matter.”

The death of Kissinger’s Shuttle Diplomacy: the Jerusalem factor

No man has possibly served the American Empire as much as Henry Kissinger did, and with all the literature, including screenplays, that have been written about him and his “shuttle diplomacy”, none probably described his biggest ever performance than Patrick Seale in his book “Asad”. After all, even though Kissinger is always remembered as the diplomat who has negotiated terms of settlement with the Vietcong, the Vietnam war was a fait accompli long before the negotiations took off, and if anything, his role was that of damage-control and face-saving; no more, no less.

Kissinger’s true, and perhaps only, major success story was his shuttle diplomacy that paved the way for the historic, albeit infamous, Camp David Agreement between Egypt and Israel.

Before Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy, a term and modus operandi he initiated, all indirect contacts between Arabs and Israelis were done via the UN and its multitude of organizations, and any would-be peace talks, were done via the USA and the USSR. Even the post Yom Kippur War peace deal that Kissinger himself was meant to broker between the Arabs and Israel, was also meant to involve the Soviets as equal partners to America in the negotiation process. But Kissinger managed to convince Sadat that he can negotiate a better deal for him directly with Israel, and without having to involve Egypt’s war time partner, Syria.

The rest is history, and since then, and technically until the 28th of September 2015, the Soviet/Russian presence in the Levant was reduced to a naval facility in the Syrian port of Tartous. This statement is not to undermine the huge effect of more recent Russian UNSC vetoes since the “War on Syria” started between 2011 and 2015, but effectively, the Russian presence took a turn when Russia engaged itself militarily in attacking terror organizations on Syrian soil on the 28th of September 2015.

In between Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy triumph and the 28th of September 2015, emboldened by the New World Order single super power status, America reigned in the Levant single-handedly as the only power on the ground.

According to Kissinger’s achievements, some of which were put into American foreign policy law, ensuring the security of Israel became an American undertaking and all of the so-called peace negotiations, including those of Oslo, were only intended to ensure the security of Israel and to maintain the power balance grossly in its favour.

Driven by arrogance and self-grandeur, America did not foresee that it should have used the time it had at the top in order to twist the arm of Israel to coerce it to accept a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. And every time the Palestinians were prepared to let go of more rights, Israel demanded more privileges. Not only did this inadvertently lead to the formation of Hamas, but even the very pliable and malleable PLO remained unable to reach a peace agreement, despite the large number of huge concessions it gave the Israeli side.

America has had a golden opportunity and ample time to negotiate an Arab/Israeli peace deal. No peace deal at all would keep all parties fully satisfied; especially the hardliners on both sides. That said, with the right intentions, America could have brokered an agreement that pleased a workable majority on both sides of the divide. However, in dealing with the crisis, America did not give Palestinian rights in specific, and Arab/Muslim rights in general, any consideration at all.

This is why all peace talks that followed the era of Kissinger all the way till the end of the days of John Kerry have failed; they were predestined to either fail, or to coerce Palestinians and the rest of Arabs to accept the unacceptable.

At the height of their arrogance, the Americans and Israelis never ever thought that a time will come during which they will lose the upper hand. They never even considered that a time will come during which the balance of power they thought they have set in stone was going to shift, let alone change.

Later on, as the “War on Syria” was waged, the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” with all of its diverse elements and members; including the USA and Israel, were certain of an easy and prompt victory and the capitulation of the axis of resistance.

The irony is that despite failures to topple Assad, occupy Lebanon or even subdue the besieged and overwhelmed Gaza Strip, the American/Israeli arrogance remained steadfast in its efforts of self-destruction. Self-destruction, because without victories, without being able to enforce political settlements, and without any hopes or enforceable plans to twist events around to its advantage, the American/Israeli axis, make that the American/Israeli/Saudi axis, seemed to be steering itself from the leading role to that of irrelevance.

Whether the fruit of Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” was the love-child of the petro-dollar or the other way around, is a matter akin to what comes first, the chicken or the egg. The two went hand-in-hand, and unabated for a few decades; but the momentum has been lost and the Camp David Agreement zenith cannot be repeated; even on a smaller scale.

But the petro-dollar is also losing its breath. The rise of the joint Russian-Chinese might in particular, and BRICS more generally, is certainly putting the noose around the neck of the Greenback. The American trade deficits compounded with the massive physical gold reserves that the Russians and Chinese in particular are accumulating will soon make the petro-dollar look like “Monopoly” money. Even Saudi Arabia, America’s partner in the petro-dollar fiasco, has recently showed interest in trading with China with gold-backed Yuan.

It is as if the house of cards is tumbling down as what underpins its foundations, one by one, is crumbling.

From the Arab side, Saudi Arabia and its GCC remain within the American camp, and increasingly less covertly, on the Israeli side. GCC state officials have had several meetings with Israeli counterparts over the years, and of late, GCC officials have been making statements declaring that Israel is not an enemy. It is as if they are conditioning Arabs to listen to this rhetoric, clearly with the ultimate objective of normalizing relationships with Israel; something that the Arab street continues to refuse to accept, even in Egypt and Jordan despite their peace treaties with Israel and exchange of diplomatic representation.

In every step of the way however, the American Empire is losing not only its grip on reality, but also that of stature. And in every step of the way, America is putting its regional allies in the Middle East in more tenuous and even embarrassing situations.

Even Erdogan, the great enemy of secular Syria and one who has promised to go into Damascus, triumphant, to pray in the great Omayyad Mosque after the fall Assad, a supposed American ally who continues to be, thus far, a NATO member, finds himself and his national interests closer to Russia than to America. The Turkish-American schism started when the Obama administration did not listen to Erdogan’s ultimatum to choose between supporting Turkey or the Kurds.

Enter the Trump factor.

For better or for worse, and leaving the rest of the world aside if we can, Trump is hastening the process of making America irrelevant in the Middle East.

By moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, many reactions have followed.

Condemnations came from right across the globe, not only from the Arab and Muslim Worlds. Even EU leaders like the French President and German FM have had their say voicing their shock and disappointment.

To “outsiders”, the reaction of Muslims and Palestinians may seem like an over-kill. Some cynics and critics are wondering about the significance of a tokenistic move by America vis-à-vis the bigger reality of occupation on the ground. Such voices are saying that Trump’s decision did not effectively change anything at all. Others may see the wave of rejection as an irrational Muslim upheaval that will eventually run out of steam. But the bottom line is that with Trump’s decision, America has moved itself further away from the few Arab and Muslim supporters it has left in the Middle East.

To say that this move has pushed America closer towards irrelevance would be an under-rated statement. By agreeing to relocate the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, Donald Trump has sealed and dusted that deal that makes America totally irrelevant in the Middle East.

Even the Saudis, the staunch supporters of America and only vocal Arab supporters left, are too embarrassed to back Trump on his decision. So, in effect, with his decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem, Trump has galvanized rivaling Muslim factions and groups into a united voice on the single issue of Jerusalem. Even Saudi Arabia and Iran will not openly disagree with each other on this issue. Erdogan pre-warned Trump and referred to Jerusalem as a “redline”. But so was supporting Kurds. How many breached redlines does Erdogan need before he re-evaluates Turkey’s strategic alliances and perhaps even leaves NATO?

Tokenistic as it may mean to some, Trump’s decision means that no Arab or Muslim leader can be seen supporting it without risking street riots and even revolutions.

On the bigger picture however, American irrelevance means that the few Arab states and organizations that remained in hope that one day, perhaps one day, America will be able to broker for them a proper and just peace deal with Israel, have lost hope; and most likely permanently.

This new phase means that the successes of Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” are already a thing of the past; effectively as of now. Apart from the much smaller role Russia played in Georgia in 2008, with Russia actively on Syrian ground, having succeeded in her first real ever military venture outside its borders since the demise of the USSR, the wheel of fate has made a one hundred and eighty degree turn. To this effect, America has catapulted itself out of the position of sole power and dominance, and in doing so, it inadvertently invited Russia back in with open doors.

Kissinger is not turning in his grave yet. He is alive and “well” and watching the mess of what subsequent American shuttle diplomacy, which ironically tried to shape itself on his image, has created and what it has made out of his achievements; not only in as far as giving America the sole power in the Middle East region, but also in terms of what the reversal of his achievements is going to eventuate into when it comes to his obsession with ensuring the security of Israel.

The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

IOC bans Russia: Cold War 2.0 politics ruins the Olympics

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66

The announcement by the International Olympic Committee that Russia would be banned from the PyeongChang Winter Olympics - but that Russian athletes, if proven ‘clean’ from doping would be able to compete under a neutral banner- has to be seen in its wider geopolitical context.

The decision comes amid a backdrop of unrelenting Russophobia fueled by Western elites who are furious Russia has thwarted their plans for regime change in Syria and is generally getting in the way of US hegemonic aspirations and the neocon/globalist agenda.

Revealingly, straight after the IOC decision was announced leading Russophobes, like US Senator John McCain, were renewing their calls for the 2018 football World Cup to be taken away from Russia, showing that this is about the reviving of Cold War politics and not drugs. It’s clear ‘The Endless War’ lobby in the West wants Russia isolated, humiliated and banned from everything. Sport is only one front in their obsessive campaign, attacks on the Russian media is another. In the current climate, it is virtually impossible Russia would get a fair hearing.

Question One: How would you feel if you were an athlete who had trained hard for four years for the Olympics only to be beaten by someone who it later transpired had cheated by using drugs?

Question Two: How would you feel if you were an athlete who had trained hard for four years for the Olympics only to be barred from competing for your country because someone else from your country had been held to have taken drugs?

I’m sure you’d agree that both cases you would feel very aggrieved. It’s right and proper that drug cheats should be punished - from whatever country they come from - so long as the evidence is there. It’s also right and proper that the innocent don’t pay for the sins of the guilty.

The job of sporting authorities is to make sure that justice is done. That means banning athletes who are proved to have broken the rules, but not imposing blanket bans when evidence of a state-sponsored drug program is missing or inconclusive. And not allowing geopolitics to play any part in their deliberations.

Russia should be treated like any other country; we can surely all agree on that. Alas, that isn’t what appears to have happened.

Last year, there was a blanket ban on Russian Paralympians competing in Rio- imposed by the IPC, which has representatives from six NATO countries on its 14 member board - punishing athletes who had never done anything wrong.

Russian athletes have been banned (and stripped of their medals) without proof of their guilt being published by the IOC’s Oswald Commission - which was set up in July 2016 to investigate the second part of the McLaren report (more of which later). The IOC says it will publish the evidence of ‘violations’ in ‘due course’ - but if they have it - why not now.

How can it be right to ban people without publishing the evidence?

This witch-hunt against Russian athletes goes back to the McLaren report. How authoritative was that? Answer: not very. If you think that’s just ‘Russian propaganda,' ITV Sports editor Steve Scott acknowledged in November that we are not in “beyond reasonable doubt territory” – in his article “Did the McLaren report into Russian doping overstep the mark.”

For the first part of the report - McLaren, a law professor from a country (Canada) which is a geopolitical adversary of Russia and whose anti-doping agency head, had along with his US counterpart, tried to lobby the IOC to ban ALL Russian athletes from the Rio Olympics last year admitted he “did not seek to interview persons living within the Russian Federation.”

This is a breach of a fundamental principle of natural justice – namely “audi alteram partem” (“listen to the other side”). That wasn’t all that was unsatisfactory about McLaren’s report. There was the lack of supporting evidence for its claims. The line was “we don’t know how they tampered with the urine samples, but we know the Russians did it.” And of course, the report was heavily based –as ITV news conceded last night- on the testimony of just one man- Grigory Rodchenkov- former head of Moscow’s anti-doping laboratory who defected to the US. But just how trustworthy a witness was he?

For the second part of his report McLaren did meet “some” Russian officials, but not all who have been accused.

Furthermore, as recently as November 27, WADA chief Craig Reedie said that while there were “hints” and “claims” of evidence of a systematic state-sponsored Russian doping scheme, 95 of the 96 cases of Russian athletes WADA is investigating have been suspended because “there was not sufficient evidence to pursue an anti-doping violation.”

Yet despite this, before the announcement in Lausanne yesterday, there were exhortations from Western media commentators for the IOC to “do the right thing, ” i.e., ban Russia - based on a report which had more holes in it than a giant slab of Swiss cheese.

Imagine if Thomas Bach, IOC President, had announced Russia would not be banned as conclusive evidence of a state-sponsored doping program had not been presented - which was indeed the case. Then much of the Russia-bashing Western media would have turned their guns on Bach and his committee accusing him, and them, of being “corrupt” and “in cahoots with Putin.”

Remember the attacks on the IOC when they didn’t impose a blanket ban on Russia at last year’s Rio Olympics? How much did that influence the IPC to make their decision?